WP/27259/2009 of Jiyyana Venkata Rao, Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2009

Conclusion

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel representing the writ petitionersand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.

2. This court ordered notice before admission on 18-12-2009.

3. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus todeclare the action of the respondents in not withdrawing thenotification of proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the LandAcquisition Act of the first respondent in proceedingsNo.G2/1258/2008 dated 11-04-2008 published in ‘The Hindu’ local newspaper regarding land acquisition proceedings in respect ofSy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada RuralMandal, East Godavari District, belongs to the petitioners eventhough the notification lapsed long back, as illegal, contrary to lawand against principles of natural justice and pass such othersuitable orders.

4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition.

5. It is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners andpossessors of the agricultural dry land in Sy.No.372, admeasuringAc.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada RuralMandal, East Godavari District.

6. It is stated that the first respondent issued 4(1) Notification for acquiring the petitioner’s dry land inSy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at ThimmapuramVillage, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, which waspublished in ‘The Hindu’ local newspaper dated 19-04-2008. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice by referenceNo.B1/260/2008 dated 19-04-2008 under Form-3 calling for theobjections and to attend for personal hearing on 04-06-2008.Immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioners submitted theirwritten objections to the second respondent and attended to thesecond respondent office on 04-06-2008 to submit their oralobjections. On that day, the second respondent without hearinganything simply had taken signatures in empty papers. Thepetitioners requested to hear the objections, but the secondrespondent declined to hear and asked the petitioners to come onsome other day, which will be informed by him. But, the second respondent never asked the petitioners to come to his office tohear oral objections.

7. Further it is stated that the petitioners submitted a formalrepresentation after issuing the 4(1) Notification to withdraw theproceedings to acquire the petitioners’ agricultural land.Subsequently, even though petitioners made a representation tothe respondents immediately after notification and filed objectionsas per the Form-3 notice dated 19-04-2008, but the 5-A enquirywas not conducted by the second respondent and at that time, thepetitioners made several representations and objections to the firstand second respondents to withdraw the notification under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

8. It is also stated that as per the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act, Section 6 of the declaration has to be publishedwithin one year from the date of 4(1) Notification by therespondents. But, in the present case the 4(1) Notification waspublished on 19-04-2008. From the date of 4(1) Notification, declaration of Section 6 has to be publishedwithin one year from the 4(1) Notification i.e., 19-04-2008, soSection 6 declaration had to be given on or before 19-04-2008. If Section 6 declaration is not given within one yearfrom the date of 4(1) Notification, the 4(1) Notificationautomatically lapsed.

9. It is further stated that even though the 4(1) Notificationlapsed automatically, the petitioners unable to do anything in thesaid land. Since, the petitioners are the agriculturists, when theyapproached either to Nationalized Bank or Co-operative Bank or private persons for loan, they are denying tosanction loans, as the said land is under the process of land acquisition proceedings of the respondents.

10. It is further stated that as the respondents failed to withdrawthe notification of proceedings under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act of the first respondent in ProceedingsNo.G2/1258/08 dated 11-04-2008 published in ‘The Hindu’ localnewspaper dated 19-04-2008 regarding Land Acquisitionproceedings in respect of Sy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 centssituated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, EastGodavari District, belongs to the petitioners, even though thenotification lapsed long back. It is stated that the petitioners arefacing day-to-day problems in getting the agriculture loan or inregistering any deed and suffering mental agony and sustainingirreparable loss. In such circumstances, the writ petitionersapproached this court.

11. It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader forLand Acquisition that under Section 6 declaration was not madewithin time. The same is recorded.

12. In the light of the facts and circumstances, inasmuch asdeclaration under Section 6 had not been published within one yearfrom 4(1) Notification and also in the light of the reasons whichhad been explained in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition, since the 4(1) Notification had lapsed, the writ petitioners are bound tosucceed.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extentindicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________

December 31, 2009.PN

P.S. NARAYANA, J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION No.27259 of 2009

December 31, 2009